Defense and attack
The attack and defense arguments for Christine Nixon have been re-hashed for a few days now. This quote from Leon T (April 16, 2010, 11:52AM) sums it up best for me:
The ‘defense’ of Nixon is as tedious as the ‘attack’. What is now firmly established is that she was at least slipshod in her original submission to the inquiry - a fairly clear indicator of attitude - what is also evident is that she had a casual approach to her role in the fire response. She is not alone in this, as much more directly related responsible people have also been exposed as having a casual and/or inept approach. This stems from developments in the political/bureaucratic world in recent yeras. A concept of detachment from the people and hence their sworn responsibilities is all too obvious. It is now about ‘personality’ rather than substance - hence the silliness of both the ‘attack’ and ‘defense’ arguments launched in relation to Nixon and others. This sentimental approach is dangerous and allows politicians and other rubes about the place to get away with things because after all, they are a ‘good bloke’. Nonsense, they are either capable of doing their job properly or they are not. The findings of the commission are the most important aspect of all this and the puffery occuring at this time only obscures that fact.
